I see President Trump may have taken a step up with the nomination of former Attorney General William Barr, who served under the late President Bush. I don’t remember a thing about him, but I see Wikipedia says he’s a strong a defender of Presidential power – maybe Trump consulted the same source that I did.
Regardless, it’s good to see he has experience and was thought to have handled the responsibilities ably under President Bush. This may result in a relatively placid transition from Whitaker, whose entire background is clownish, to someone with some heft.
However, it’s worth noting that the link above, from CNN, also contains some of his commentary on the Trump Administration and the activities of then-FBI Director Comey and Special Counsel Mueller, in which he appears to express skepticism concerning the propriety of the investigation. CNN also points to a New York Times article:
Mr. Barr said he sees more basis for investigating the [Uranium One] deal than any supposed collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia. “To the extent it is not pursuing these matters, the department is abdicating its responsibility,” he said.
My understanding of the Uranium One deal was that the subsequent controversy was nothing more than a fictional storm. Standard government procedures were followed, including input from the national security intelligence agencies, and it was approved with signoffs from all relevant authorities, which did not include Secretary Clinton, who was the primary target of this political attack. While I could see calls for reopening that investigation as being valid, if dubious, I think suggesting that investigations of possible collusion to buy a Presidential elections, based on the provided initial evidence, was far more reasonable – and the results since then, consisting of indictments, guilty pleas, and the conveyance of information by Flynn and others, suggests the Mueller investigation has been more than justified.
But the question that came immediately to mind when I heard about this last night: does Barr require confirmation by the Senate? After all, he was confirmed in 1991. Not that I think he’d be rejected this time around, he might even garner substantial Democratic support, but just out of curiosity, will Trump just try to install him in the position and claim he shouldn’t be proctored?
